[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Madhukar S/O Shankar Jawanjal vs The Vice-Chairman/ Member- Secretary, ... on 7 May, 2026

Author: M.S. Jawalkar

Bench: M.S. Jawalkar

2026:BHC-NAG:7098-DB


                       J-wp4610.23 final.odt                                              1/12


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                           WRIT PETITION No.4610 OF 2023


                       Madhukar S/o Shankar Jawanjal,
                       Aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired,
                       R/o Wankhede Nagar, Dabki Road,
                       Old City, Akola.                                      :   PETITIONER

                                               ...VERSUS...

                       1.    The Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary,
                             Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
                             Scrutiny Committee, Chaprashipura,
                             Amravati.

                       2.    The Deputy Director General of
                             Meteorology, Regional Meteorological
                             Centre, DBAI Airport, Sonegaon,
                             Nagpur-440005.                                  :   RESPONDENTS

                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for Petitioner.
                       Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
                       No.1.
                       Mr. C.J. Dhumane, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                       CORAM                         :   SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
                                                         NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
                       RESERVED ON    :                  20th APRIL, 2026.
                       PRONOUNCED ON :                   07th MAY, 2026.

                       JUDGMENT :

(Per : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging

the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.1

Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

(for short "the Scrutiny Committee"), in Case No.

5/501/Ser/102018/114946, invalidating his caste claim as

belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, enlisted at Sr. No.44 of the

Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :

The petitioner was appointed on the post of

"Chowkidar" from the Scheduled Tribe category by respondent

No.2 Deputy Director General of Meteorology, Regional

Meteorological Centre, Nagpur in a temporary capacity with effect

from forenoon of 05.10.1984. The petitioner forwarded the

proposal for caste verification on 01.08.2018. Earlier, the

petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.5666/2018 seeking directions

to the Scrutiny Committee to decide his claim within a stipulated

time, whereupon this Court passed order on 18.12.2018 directing

the Committee accordingly.

4. In compliance of the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by

this Court in Writ Petition No.5331/2018, the service of the

petitioner was restored vide Order No.XA-015/Gen.Misc/Vol.VII/

795 dated 22.12.2018, subject to the condition that in case his

claim is invalidated by the Committee, his service shall stand

dismissed. The Police Vigilance Cell conducted inquiry and

submitted its report on 06.07.2021. The petitioner filed reply to the

vigilance report on 09.08.2021. The petitioner was called for

hearing on 10.08.2021 and was present.

5. The Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order

dated 15.09.2021 invalidating the caste claim on the grounds of

documentary evidence, affinity, and area restriction. The petitioner

retired from service on 31.08.2021 and the pension and retiral

benefits have not been released by respondent No.2 on account of

non-submission of the validity certificate. The petitioner vide

communications dated 07.12.2021 and 15.06.2023 requested

respondent No.2 for release of pension and retiral benefits;

however, the same have not been released till date.

6. The following pre-constitutional documents were

submitted by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee :

 Sr                   Document                         Year
No.

1 Extract of Kotwal Book of grandfather Pundlik 1947 (D.O.B. 14.04.1947) 2 Extract of Sale Deed in respect of petitioner's 01.12.1947 family

7. We have heard Ms. Preeti Rane, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Mr. C.J. Dhumane, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner possesses a pre-constitutional document of the year 1947

in the form of an extract of the Kotwal Book, which clearly

mentions the caste as "Thakur" and carries the greatest probative

value. It is submitted that the said document was not disputed in

the first inquiry by the Vigilance Cell and was procured by the

Vigilance Officer himself during the course of inquiry.

9. It is submitted that the invalidation on the ground of

area restriction is unsustainable in view of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 and the

Government of Maharashtra Circular of 1977, removing all area

restrictions. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

has no expert, no anthropological or ethnological traits, and no

research material pertaining to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, as is

evident from the Committee's own RTI reply dated 01.07.2005, and

the inquiry is therefore contrary to the guidelines laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case (supra) and the Full

Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra,

2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995.

10. It is submitted that affinity alone cannot be the sole

criterion and the Committee failed to give due weightage to the

documentary evidence. Reliance is placed on Maharashtra Adiwasi

Thakur Jamat Swarkshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013(2)

Mh.L.J. 785, Anand Katole, 2011(6) Mh.L.J. (SC) 919, Jaywant

Dilip Pawar in Civil Appeal No. 2336/2011 dated 08.03.2017, State

of Maharashtra Vs. Milind (2001), Pandurang Rangnath Chavan Vs.

State of Maharashtra, 1998(2) Mh.L.J. 802, and the judgments of

this Court in W.P. Nos. 6142/2017, 10056/2019 & 13073/2021.

11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent No.1 submits that the Vigilance Cell, during the course

of inquiry, obtained documents adverse to the claim of the

petitioner. The details of the adverse documents are as under :

Sr Document               Name      Relations Caste    Date
No                                  hip       Entry
1  School Record Z.P. Shankar                 (Thakur)
   Primary        Marathi
   School, Babhulgaon
   (Jabo), Akola
2  School Leaving         Shankar   Brother Hindu      01.07.1975
   Certificate Extract,   Digamber            (Thakur)
   Babhulgaon School      Thakur
3  School Leaving         Omprakash Nephew Hindu       17.06.1992
   Certificate Extract,   Digamber            (Thakur)
   Gram Vikas Vidyalay, Thakur
   Babhulgaon

12. It is submitted that the above post-independence

entries consistently record the caste as "Hindu Thakur", which is a

distinct entry from "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe and carries great

probative value. It is submitted that the petitioner himself admitted

during the hearing that he does not have any other revenue or

school documents to corroborate the pre-constitutional entry. It is

submitted that the pre-constitutional document mentions a male

child born to Pundlik Thakur, however, no relationship between the

petitioner and Pundlik Thakur has been established on record.

13. It is submitted that the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe

resides in the villages and talukas of Thane, Kulaba, Nashik (Nashik

Taluka only), Pune and Ahmadnagar Districts, and the ordinary

residence of the petitioner in District Akola and Buldhana does not

fall within the said habitat area. It is submitted that the burden of

proving the tribe claim rests squarely on the petitioner under

Section 8 of Maharashtra Act No.23 of 2001 and the petitioner has

failed to discharge the same. It is submitted that the impugned

order is just, proper, and legal and does not warrant interference in

writ jurisdiction.

14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the

petitioner was appointed in the Scheduled Tribe category in a

temporary capacity with effect from 05.10.1984, and his service

was restored by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2018 in Writ

Petition No.5331/2018, subject to the express condition that in case

the caste claim is invalidated, his service shall stand dismissed. It is

submitted that since the Scrutiny Committee vide impugned order

dated 15.09.2021 has invalidated the petitioner's caste claim and

cancelled and confiscated the Scheduled Tribe certificate, the

appointment of the petitioner has become illegal ab-initio.

15. It is is submitted that in view of the direction contained

in Para 13(VI) of the order dated 18.12.2018, respondent No. 2 was

well within its jurisdiction to withhold pension and retiral benefits.

It is submitted that since the very appointment of the petitioner is

illegal and non est in the eyes of law, no statutory entitlement for

pension and other monetary benefits can arise, as held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar Vs. Devendra Sharma (2019

INSC 1157), Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar [AIR

1988 Pat 26: 1988 Lab IC 907: 1987 BBCJ 701 (FB)]. It is

submitted that the GPF and CGEGIS amounts have already been

released to the petitioner after retirement. It is further submitted

that the petition has been filed nearly two years after the date of

cause of action, without any application for condonation of delay,

and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine.

16. We have carefully considered the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on

record. The petitioner claims to belong to "Thakur" Scheduled

Tribe at Sr. No.44 of the Presidential Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950.

By virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaywant

Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into

force on 20.09.1976, area restrictions stand removed, making

"Thakur" a Scheduled Tribe for the entire State of Maharashtra.

The Committee's reliance on area restriction is, therefore, wholly

untenable and is rejected outright.

17. The petitioner has submitted pre-constitutional

documentary evidence in the form of the Kotwal Book extract of

1947 and the Sale Deed extract of 01.12.1947, both of which

consistently record the caste as "Thakur". It is further significant to

note that the Vigilance Cell Report itself confirms that in all

documents submitted by the petitioner, the caste entry of "Thakur"

is clearly mentioned. As held in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl.

Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241 and Anand

Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, (2012)

1 SCC 113, pre-constitutional documents carry the highest

probative value and must be accorded due consideration. The

Committee erred in discarding the said documents without any

cogent or valid reason.

18. As regards the contention that the entry "Thakur" does

not establish Scheduled Tribe status, this Court in Nikhil Anil

Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021(5) Mh.L.J. 104 has

categorically held that it is unfathomable to believe that prior to the

Scheduled Tribes Order of 1950, any entries would have been

recorded as "Thakur Scheduled Tribe". The persons claiming to

belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe did not foresee that their caste

would be recognized as Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, never

recorded their caste as "Thakur, Scheduled Tribe". The finding of

the Committee that the entry "Thakur" in the pre-constitutional

document does not prove membership of the Scheduled Tribe is,

therefore, legally unsustainable.

19. As regards the affinity test, the Scrutiny Committee,

Amravati admittedly has no expert, anthropological or ethnological

research material, and no characteristics of the "Thakur" Scheduled

Tribe available on record, as is evident from its own RTI reply dated

01.07.2005. In the absence of such infrastructure, the application of

the affinity test is directly contrary to the guidelines laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case and the Full

Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra,

2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995. Rejection of the tribe claim on the ground of

failure of the affinity test, conducted without the requisite expertise

and infrastructure, is manifestly perverse and cannot be sustained

in law. Further the Vigilance Cell report supports the case of the

petitioner.

20. As regards the contention of respondent No.2 that the

appointment has become illegal ab-initio, it is to be noted that the

very foundation of the said contention the impugned invalidation

order is being quashed by this Court. Once the invalidation order is

set aside, the condition imposed by the order dated 18.12.2018

does not operate against the petitioner, and the withholding of

pension and retiral benefits by respondent No.2 is consequently

unsustainable. The petitioner having served for over three decades

and having retired from service, the continued withholding of

retiral dues causes grave and irreparable prejudice to an aged

retired employee.

21. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the

impugned invalidation order dated 15.09.2021 is unsustainable in

law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we pass

the following order :

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned invalidation order dated

15.09.2021 passed by Respondent No. 1 Scheduled Tribes Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in Case No.

5/501/Ser/102018/114946 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The respondent No. 1 is directed to issue the

Caste Validity Certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying him

as belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(iv) The respondent No.2 Deputy Director General of

Meteorology, Regional Meteorological Centre, Nagpur is directed to

release all pension and retiral benefits to the petitioner within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

this order and shall not take any coercive action against the

petitioner in relation to his service benefits on the basis of the

invalidation order, which stands quashed.

(v) Writ Petition is disposed of.